Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-24 18:26:33
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> 1. What is your evaluation of the design?
It looks good because it seems to fill all of my needs.
If it actually fill it's promise considering the issues with what the
standard provide, it's very good.
I was wondering though:
- what is the behaviours of pretty_name() when the type is in namespaces
(there are no example of this);
- what is the behaviours of pretty_name() when the type is in an anonymous
In particular when there are two types with the same name in different
compilation units but in anonymous namespaces?
> 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I didn't read the implementation.
> 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation?
The comparison tables helps to get quickly an understanding of how to use
it so it's good.
I wonder though if someone not used to typeid(), std::type_index and
std::type_info would understand it quickly,
but I guess the target audience is people already using them anyway.
I would like to see examples of output of name functions in the namespace,
sub-namespace and anonymous namespace cases.
Also, the point on shared-library boundaries is not clear to me: how does
this library fix that issue exactly?
A quick explaination somewhere would be good.
The "Example with Boost.Variant" would benefit from a short explaination of
why there are these macros in the original boost.variant
Unfortunately the full interface of type_info it is a bit hard to find
because there are missing links to the actualy types on this page:
Strangely enough the type_index page does have the right links:
I think this should be fixed.
Also, on these pages:
There is no documentation, so I don't know exactly what to expect from the
naming functions (are they working across compilers too?)
> 4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the
I will replace my use of typeid/type_index/type_info by this library as
soon as it is released
because I'm working with a lot of shared libraries (both loaded on startup
with a cross-platform code base.
I use a lot the type informations in particular in type-erasing containers,
so I don't want
to see strange obscure behaviour in some plateforms/using some compilers
but not others.
> 5. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have
> any problems?
I didn't try to use it yet.
> 6. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A
> quick reading? In-depth study?
I read the documentation, then I looked for the full interface of type_info.
> 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I use typeid,type_index and type_info a lot for type-erased containers (or
other type-erased systems designed for extendability)
but I didn't know at all the problems related to these standard features
until I read the documentation
of the first proposal, which surprised me a lot.
So I'm a big user, but not an expert one.
> And finally, every review should answer this question:
> 8. Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be
> sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure
> your overall opinion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk